18 个 · 按相关度排序
Guide a structured review after a security incident, using timelines and response data to identify root causes and process gaps. Produce review notes, response metrics, and practical improvements with named owners and deadlines.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Facilitate structured post-incident reviews to identify root causes, document what worked and failed, and produce actionable recommendations to improve future incident response.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Synthesises retrospective notes, closing reports and post-implementation reviews into a DRAFT lessons-learned document: themed lessons with source counts, anonymised quoted evidence graded by strength, repeats against a prior register, contradictions, and a recommended owner with a stated basis for each follow-up. Names no individual or vendor and assigns no blame. Use when the user asks to "compile the lessons learned", "write up the retrospective", "theme the close-out notes", "what did we learn across these projects" or "refresh the lessons register". Do not use for a single sprint's review, use sprint-review-summary instead; for an incident investigation, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for customer feedback themes, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Facilitate structured post-incident reviews to identify root causes, document what worked and failed, and produce actionable recommendations to improve future incident response.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Facilitate structured post-incident reviews to identify root causes, document what worked and failed, and produce actionable recommendations to improve future incident response.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Mandatory pre-flight-search reference. Contains the Seats.aero workflow (pull ALL programs first), source accuracy hierarchy, Southwest/Companion Pass specifics, small-market caveats, and Duffel limitations.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Contract for the project decision journal (tradeoffs and lessons-learned logs). Use when recording a decision, tradeoff, or lesson, or building a consumer hook.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Conducts structured post-breach remediation using a lessons learned framework covering root cause remediation, control gap closure, policy updates, training modifications, monitoring enhancements, and regulatory follow-up. Provides a systematic approach to preventing breach recurrence and demonstrating accountability to supervisory authorities. Keywords: post-breach, remediation, lessons learned, root cause, control gap, policy update, training.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Use this skill when an incident or a serious near miss is closed and the team must learn from it, or an auditor asks for lessons learned, and someone says "run the post-mortem", "post-incident review", "lessons learned", "retro on the outage", "blameless review", "root cause of the incident" or "what do we change after this breach". Builds the timeline from records before the meeting, runs a blameless discussion, finds the contributing factors, and turns them into a few owned, dated actions linked to updates of the risk register, controls, playbooks and supplier records, then writes the review and an action tracker.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Conduct a project or sprint retrospective by gathering data from status reports and velocity metrics, structuring what went well and what needs improvement, and generating actionable improvement items with owners and due dates. Use at the end of a sprint, after a project phase or milestone, following a significant incident or success, at a quarterly review of ongoing processes, or before starting a similar project to capture lessons learned.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, use project-status-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Drafts a blameless incident postmortem (summary, impact, timeline, detection and response, contributing factors as candidates for review, action items) from an incident channel export, ticket notes and any alert or change records, with UNKNOWN for every fact the inputs do not contain. Never assigns blame, names a root cause or re-rates severity. Use when the user asks to "write the postmortem for this incident", "build the incident timeline from the chat export", "draft the post-incident review" or "turn this ticket and channel log into an incident report". Do not use for a knowledge article from the resolved ticket, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis; for data-breach impact and notification questions, use data-incident-impact-brief. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Synthesises a batch of customer feedback (survey answers, reviews, ticket and chat comments) into a DRAFT themed report: coded themes with record counts and shares, anonymised verbatim quotes cited to record codes, contradictions and unverified claims, and the follow-up questions to answer next. Produces no sentiment score or percentage positive as fact; ratings appear only as distributions with n. Use when the user asks to "theme this feedback", "what are customers saying", "summarise these survey answers", "analyse these reviews", "find the top complaints in these comments" or "code this voice of the customer data". Do not use for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis instead; for sorting a live queue and drafting replies, use ticket-triage-pack; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Procedimiento estructurado de 6 pasos para mejorar, renovar o reconstruir pipelines existentes, carpetas de proyectos individuales, estructuras de documentación o stacks de software. Direccionable como "pipeline optimizer" (para pipelines temáticos completos, p. ej. de software, investigación o desarrollo de videojuegos) o "project-folder optimizer" (para carpetas de proyectos individuales dentro de un pipeline, p. ej. una herramienta de software o proyecto de artículo académico). Se activa ante tareas como "mejorar pipeline X", "optimizar el stack", "reconstruir Y", "renovación", "refactorización de pipeline", "limpiar carpeta de proyecto", "mejorar estructura de carpetas", "unificar convenciones", "consolidación de documentación", "integrar en sistema existente" o cualquier intervención sustancial en estructuras establecidas. Proporciona análisis del estado actual, aclaración del propósito, boceto del estado ideal, plan de brechas, identificación empírica de puntos de dolor y reevaluación con subagentes limpios. Previene estándares paralelos, duplicación y rupturas en el pipeline.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
结构化的6步骤流程，用于改进、改造或重构现有的流水线（pipeline）、独立项目文件夹、文档结构或软件技术栈。可调用为“pipeline optimizer”（针对整个主题流水线，例如软件、研究或游戏开发流水线）或“project-folder optimizer”（针对流水线内的独立项目文件夹，例如单个软件工具或论文项目）。触发于诸如“改进流水线X”、“优化技术栈”、“重构Y”、“改造”、“流水线重构”、“清理项目文件夹”、“改进文件夹结构”、“统一规范”、“文档整合”、“集成到现有系统”或针对既有结构的任何实质性干预等任务。提供既有资产调查、目的明确化、理想蓝图草图、差距规划、实证痛点识别以及使用全新的子智能体进行重新测试。防止并行标准、重复建设和流水线中断。
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Структурированная 6-шаговая процедура для улучшения, реновации или перестройки существующих пайплайнов, отдельных папок проектов, структур документации или стек-технологий. Вызывается как "pipeline optimizer" (для целых тематических пайплайнов, например, пайплайнов разработки ПО, исследований или создания игр) или "project-folder optimizer" (для отдельных папок проектов внутри пайплайна, например, единичного инструмента ПО или проекта статьи). Активируется при выполнении таких задач, как "улучшить пайплайн X", "оптимизировать стек", "перестроить Y", "реновация", "рефакторинг пайплайна", "навести порядок в папке проекта", "улучшить структуру папки", "унифицировать конвенции", "консолидация документации", "интегрировать в существующую систему" или при любом существенном вмешательстве в устоявшиеся структуры. Обеспечивает анализ существующего фонда, уточнение целей, эскиз идеального состояния, план устранения разрывов, эмпирическое выявление проблемных мест и повторное тестирование с помощью свежих субагентов. Предотвращает появление параллельных стандартов, дублирование и сбои в пайплайне.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
既存のパイプライン、個別プロジェクトフォルダ、ドキュメント構造、またはソフトウェアスタックを改善、改修、再構築するための構造化された6ステップのプロシージャ。「pipeline optimizer」（ソフトウェア、研究、ゲーム開発パイプラインなど、トピック全体のパイプライン対象）または「project-folder optimizer」（単一のソフトウェアツールや論文プロジェクトなど、パイプライン内の個別プロジェクトフォルダ対象）として呼び出し可能。「パイプラインXを改善する」、「スタックを最適化する」、「Yを再構築する」、「改修」、「パイプラインのリファクタリング」、「プロジェクトフォルダのクリーンアップ」、「フォルダ構造の改善」、「規約の統一」、「ドキュメントの統合」、「既存システムへの統合」、または確立された構造に対する実質的な介入タスクで起動。既存資産の調査、目的の明確化、理想像のスケッチ、ギャップ計画、経験的課題の特定、および新しいサブエージェントによる再テストを提供。並行標準の発生、重複、パイプラインの破綻を防止。
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Structured 6-step procedure for improving, renovating, or rebuilding existing pipelines, individual project folders, documentation structures, or software stacks. Addressable as "pipeline optimizer" (for whole topic pipelines, e.g. a software, research, or game-dev pipeline) or "project-folder optimizer" (for individual project folders within a pipeline, e.g. a single software tool or paper project). Triggers on tasks like "improve pipeline X", "optimize the stack", "rebuild Y", "renovation", "pipeline refactoring", "clean up project folder", "improve folder structure", "unify conventions", "documentation consolidation", "integrate into existing system", or any substantial intervention in established structures. Delivers building-stock analysis, purpose clarification, ideal sketch, gap plan, empirical pain-point identification, and retests with fresh subagents. Prevents parallel standards, duplication, and pipeline breaks.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。